Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based on UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at geography, whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too. :)
Cheers,
Asaf
I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities' among my crowds during any outreach event. The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment' or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about economic and technological advancement.
My two fast bits.
-User:Viswaprabha
On 27 September 2017 at 22:58, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based on UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at geography, whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ Defining_Emerging_Communities
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too. :)
Cheers,
Asaf
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer? Yes, you'd think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word 'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
Ariel
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:36 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) < viswaprabha@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities' among my crowds during any outreach event. The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment' or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about economic and technological advancement.
My two fast bits.
-User:Viswaprabha
On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer? Yes, you'd think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word 'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm afraid this combination is problematic, but thank you for the idea.
Specifically, the issue is that in this formulation, "knowledge" works to modify "communities", but now "emerging" appears to modify "knowledge" instead, and that doesn't work. The potential implication that knowledge is only just emerging in these communities could appear condescending, much like the terminology we're trying to get away from. I'd argue that we operate on the assumption that as our communities grow, they already have a great deal of knowledge, it's a matter of sharing and making it accessible to all.
--Michael Snow
One thing that grabs me about this is the Languages section, 750,000 speakers appears to be a rather high bar. To explain there 2.5m people in Western Australia most of could be classed as speaking nys at a basic level because of the way the Noongar language has been adopted into the English and continues to be taken up more as well as being taught in schools. The other side of the equation is that the primary source for Indigenous language speakers uses a significantly flawed methodology to identify those who use the language, the primary source being the ABS who ask only what is the main language spoken at home then lists 9 languages(6 European, 2 Asian, 1 middle east) with a 10 option of other in which the person is then asked to identify their language. Indigenous language speakers have a significant hurdle to actually be counted, and would suspect that this issue isnt unfamiliar to in many other countries with colonial histories.
It would better if the bar be a two fold thats looks for a significantly lower number of native speakers with a secondary level of partial speakers..... but I'm not sure there are reliable means even flawed ones to identify partial non native speakers of any language.
Additionally I think counting misses what can be large number of immigrants who arent no longer a residential part of the speaking community.
On 28 September 2017 at 12:24, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer? Yes, you'd think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word 'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm afraid this combination is problematic, but thank you for the idea.
Specifically, the issue is that in this formulation, "knowledge" works to modify "communities", but now "emerging" appears to modify "knowledge" instead, and that doesn't work. The potential implication that knowledge is only just emerging in these communities could appear condescending, much like the terminology we're trying to get away from. I'd argue that we operate on the assumption that as our communities grow, they already have a great deal of knowledge, it's a matter of sharing and making it accessible to all.
--Michael Snow
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced approach.
I would also urge the remaining teams within the WMF that still use the terms to consider less offensive alternatives suitable for their particular purposes.
Strainu
În 27 septembrie 2017 20:28:52 EEST, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org a scris:
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based on UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at geography, whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too. :)
Cheers,
Asaf _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
FWIW, I always liked the term "emerging communities" because it's very broad, and it can be applied not just to countries but also cultures, minorities, sub-communities of any sort.
For example, I would very much like to call the Wikisource community an "emerging" one, because it needs the exact care/attention/incubation that the WMF is trying to provide with this program. I know it's a bit stretched, but maybe it's a sort of helpful frame for sister project communities.
Aubrey
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced approach.
I would also urge the remaining teams within the WMF that still use the terms to consider less offensive alternatives suitable for their particular purposes.
Strainu
În 27 septembrie 2017 20:28:52 EEST, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org a scris:
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based on UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at geography, whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are ready to share the proposed definition today:
Defining_Emerging_Communities
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too. :)
Cheers,
Asaf _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Trimis de pe dispozitiv Android cu K-9 Mail. Rog scuzati mesajul scurt. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced approach.
Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical for the way our movement works.
Plus we can now stop arguing about whether or not to use the term "global south" which will increase everyone's productivity.
Chris
Besides all discussions on the exact definition, could we please replace "WMF" with "the Wikimedia movement"? I don't think that supporting emerging communities, however we define them, should be the prerogative of the WMF, nor should it be implied. I trust this was not the intention, either :)
Lodewijk
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the
highly discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced approach.
Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical for the way our movement works.
Plus we can now stop arguing about whether or not to use the term "global south" which will increase everyone's productivity.
Chris
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, For me this initiative raises more questions then it answers. As I understand it, it is a change in vocabulary and it defines when a Wikipedia community is big enough to get "official" attention.
My problem is that it is very much standalone; it does not connect with other practices. It does mention "incubating languages" but it does not mention the incubator. In the language committee we have had organisations, educational organisations who want to champion a language in their school. This makes them bigger than the limit of 10 editors. At this time we do not have a way to accomodate such requests. In my opinion for all the wrong reasons. The wrong reasons because we know how effective schools are in providing basic facts in a Wikipedia..
Once the Wikimedia Foundation had a group of technical people who worked on language technology. Most of these people are still working at the WMF but they are no longer involved in language tech. This became obvious when a really worthy improvement for the Bashkir language, collation, was implemented by a volunteer and Amir blogged that he had supported it as a *volunteer*.. (he made a point of this). Particularly in the smaller languages issues like collation are areas where the Wikimedia could make a big difference. It is quite obvious that when we advertise the quality of our language support (and because of our existing font support it is already quite good) we can gain a lot of adventurous people.
In the current approach to languages and support it is imho very much Wikipedia as we know it. We do not leverage the content in Wikidata as much as we could. There has a lot of acrimoniousness regarding the Cebuano Wikipedia. Millions of articles were generated as fixed text and consequently it is currently impossible to maintain it. The root cause is our inability to cooperate. When this information was imported in Wikidata (and cooperate with the original source) we could generate the text and serve it as cached content. When the data is improved, the cached text gets changed. The fact that such things are not considered is proof perfect of opportunities wasted. Opportunities open to any language.
So it would be really cool when we consider how we can "share in the sum of all our available knowledge". This is attainable if we dare to think through what we can achieve and how we can make the most out of our communities and the knowledge they hold. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2017 at 19:28, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based on UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at geography, whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ Defining_Emerging_Communities
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too. :)
Cheers,
Asaf
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
In my personal opinion, the term "emerging communities" is much more healthy and acceptable than Global South, which always sounded patronizing and diminshing.
And I also like and celebrate the initiative to create our own definition :)
Cheers! P.S.: The map in the link needs a thorough review ;)
El sept. 28, 2017 7:09 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com escribió:
Hoi, For me this initiative raises more questions then it answers. As I understand it, it is a change in vocabulary and it defines when a Wikipedia community is big enough to get "official" attention.
My problem is that it is very much standalone; it does not connect with other practices. It does mention "incubating languages" but it does not mention the incubator. In the language committee we have had organisations, educational organisations who want to champion a language in their school. This makes them bigger than the limit of 10 editors. At this time we do not have a way to accomodate such requests. In my opinion for all the wrong reasons. The wrong reasons because we know how effective schools are in providing basic facts in a Wikipedia..
Once the Wikimedia Foundation had a group of technical people who worked on language technology. Most of these people are still working at the WMF but they are no longer involved in language tech. This became obvious when a really worthy improvement for the Bashkir language, collation, was implemented by a volunteer and Amir blogged that he had supported it as a *volunteer*.. (he made a point of this). Particularly in the smaller languages issues like collation are areas where the Wikimedia could make a big difference. It is quite obvious that when we advertise the quality of our language support (and because of our existing font support it is already quite good) we can gain a lot of adventurous people.
In the current approach to languages and support it is imho very much Wikipedia as we know it. We do not leverage the content in Wikidata as much as we could. There has a lot of acrimoniousness regarding the Cebuano Wikipedia. Millions of articles were generated as fixed text and consequently it is currently impossible to maintain it. The root cause is our inability to cooperate. When this information was imported in Wikidata (and cooperate with the original source) we could generate the text and serve it as cached content. When the data is improved, the cached text gets changed. The fact that such things are not considered is proof perfect of opportunities wasted. Opportunities open to any language.
So it would be really cool when we consider how we can "share in the sum of all our available knowledge". This is attainable if we dare to think through what we can achieve and how we can make the most out of our communities and the knowledge they hold. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2017 at 19:28, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based
on
UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at
geography,
whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been
thinking
about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state
of
editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our
intention
to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we
are
ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ Defining_Emerging_Communities
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page,
too.
:)
Cheers,
Asaf
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Asaf et All,
Hope I won't get skipped because I barely talk on this list or in general on an international level but this proposal could have a long term effect on my chapter.
Happy to see WMF is ready to start giving up at least a bit on geography or census numbers and shift focus to existing communities based on their actual state and health.
I would suggest not stopping here but going forward by completely abandoning geography and such overgeneralization where the entire world can be described by 3 (that is three) labels.
Instead evaluate each community topic by topic.
Say one: governance. Even WMF itself had such a crisis, not to say the British, German and now the French "developed" chapters. For them, better organized but ever labeled "emerging" communities might have been able to provide support, if their category would not be discouraging them from stepping in.
Discouraging, yup. Put your hands on your hearts and be honest. We all think that at least on a general level the "developed" should teach and support the "emerging" and not the other way around, right?
Yet said governance as an example appears to be a lot more problematic for the ever "developed" than the ever "emerging".
This proposal does not recognize such patterns but it is a big step forward nevertheless as it shifts more focus on the existing communities. The labels are in my subjective opinion are somewhat patronizing as per above.
Balazs, from an ever "emerging" community
On Sep 27, 2017 19:30, "Asaf Bartov" abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based on UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at geography, whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ Defining_Emerging_Communities
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too. :)
Cheers,
Asaf
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Where does the number 750,000 speakers come from? And what is the rationale to exclude smaller linguistic communities?
I think emerging communities can have less speakers than that. A language can be viable and alive with less speakers than that, so we are not talking about preserving a language even if there are less speakers than that. If the language is used in day to day life and to teach at schools, why wouldn't it be considered for a Wikipedia and a Wiktionary even if there are less than 750,000 speakers?
Thank you,
Jean-Philippe Béland Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 04:29 Balázs Viczián, balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu wrote:
Hi Asaf et All,
Hope I won't get skipped because I barely talk on this list or in general on an international level but this proposal could have a long term effect on my chapter.
Happy to see WMF is ready to start giving up at least a bit on geography or census numbers and shift focus to existing communities based on their actual state and health.
I would suggest not stopping here but going forward by completely abandoning geography and such overgeneralization where the entire world can be described by 3 (that is three) labels.
Instead evaluate each community topic by topic.
Say one: governance. Even WMF itself had such a crisis, not to say the British, German and now the French "developed" chapters. For them, better organized but ever labeled "emerging" communities might have been able to provide support, if their category would not be discouraging them from stepping in.
Discouraging, yup. Put your hands on your hearts and be honest. We all think that at least on a general level the "developed" should teach and support the "emerging" and not the other way around, right?
Yet said governance as an example appears to be a lot more problematic for the ever "developed" than the ever "emerging".
This proposal does not recognize such patterns but it is a big step forward nevertheless as it shifts more focus on the existing communities. The labels are in my subjective opinion are somewhat patronizing as per above.
Balazs, from an ever "emerging" community
On Sep 27, 2017 19:30, "Asaf Bartov" abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based
on
UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at
geography,
whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been
thinking
about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state
of
editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our
intention
to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we
are
ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ Defining_Emerging_Communities
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page,
too.
:)
Cheers,
Asaf
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org